Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sesame Street research/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:16, 1 December 2012 [1].

Sesame Street research

[edit]

Sesame Street research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, as part of my ongoing goal of improving Sesame Street articles, I feel this one is ready for FAC. It's a GA currently, and has been thoroughly copyedited. It's an interesting article; I hope that its reviewers will learn a lot and have fun. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

  • Please elaborate in the summary, why this image is not replacable. It's pretty obvious, but the guidelines call for "detailed" information (check other screenshots for more detailed information, f.e. "no free screenshots of this television show are available" or something similar).
  • See WP:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline for more information about FUR requirements. The purpose of use is too general and fails to address the image usage in this specific article (why is this image needed in this article? what specific information does it add to the article topic, which can't be conveyed as text?) Fair-use could be strengthened, when you add some additional information to the main text, how the CTW research influenced the set and character design and provide some more context between article text and image in the rationale.
  • Not relevant for this FA, but a separate FUR for Sesame Street media is missing. All article usages must have own, specific rationales. GermanJoe (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I've fulfilled this request. Images for Sesame Street articles have always been an issue; there are very few free images associated with it that we can use here. Additionally, images are my weakest area as a WP editor, and the area that I need the most assistance. So thanks, and if there's anything else that should be done, please let me know. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check (FUR) (File:TakalaniSesame-set.jpg fails NFCC #8) After thinking this over, checking other Sesame Street related FAs with similar situations and the current policy, the image doesn't meet all criteria to allow usage of non-free content:

The main issue is NFCC-criterion 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (see WP:NFCC for more information, all of the listed criteria have to be met). Checking some of the most common reasonings:

  • When you remove the image, readers' understanding is not significantly reduced. The complete section is easily understandable without the visual, it makes almost no difference.
  • The image does not serve as visual identification of the article topic.
  • The main article text does not contain detailed information about the set, the co-operation or the influence between research and set design, so the image is not used to support any "commentary" in the article.

Sorry for the lengthy essay, but i wanted to make clear, why the image is not usable and should be removed from the current article (please feel free to move this whole issue to the nomination's talk page, when it's resolved to reduce clutter). WP:Media copyright questions is also a good page for additional help with this or other difficult images. Hope that info helps you - despite the bad news. GermanJoe (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda had a feeling. I'm willing to bow to more knowledgeable folks in this area, so no need to move this discussion. I will remove the image, though, which means that this article will only have one image. I hope that doesn't get in the way of its promotion, although I know that images aren't necessarily a requirement for FAC, especially when there are no free images available, as is the case here. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply a copy of the text of Minnow's speech. I could find the same text in another source if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
moved this section a bit down, as it was splitting my (too lengthy ...) image review. Content hasn't changed. GermanJoe (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to find it in a reliable source Ealdgyth - Talk 22:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN4, 36, 40, 55, 62, 63: should be endash
  • FN11: formatting
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Be consistent in whether you include dates in shortened citations
  • FN24: which source does this refer to?
  • Check for template glitches like doubled periods
  • FN18: given ISBN is 9 digits, should be 10 or 13. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corrections made. Thanks for the catches. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two "landmark".... I find that too-frequent use of quotation marks can be jarring to the prose. Would be good to instead dequote and use a word like "key" or state who described them as landmark....
Fixed. One recent criticism of my writing is that I add quotes around single words in an attempt to cite sources, which results in overusing quotation marks. Always learning new stuff here.
  • Using Overview as a heading is problematic as it is a nebulous defining character which has no sub-definition (if that makes sense). If anything, the lead is an overview, thus making an overview section repetitive and redundant. What this section really is is Background and development (from what I've read) which would describe its contents more accurately.
    Done.
  • it as "a backbone" of the creative - de-quote and rephrase--> "integral"? "key"?
    I'm not unopposed to changing this per se, but it's exactly how Jon Stone described it, so I hesitate changing it. Can you explain your problem with the phrasing as it is?
Got it. I changed the other instance of this (see below), so I'm inclined to leave this instance as is, if you don't mind. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Methods subsection has alotta "research" in the first para (any reduction in the number of times this word is used without losing meaning would be prudent...)
Done, hopefully enough.
  • and became "a mainstay" of CTW's research ... de-quote and rephrase--> "a key element"?
Perhaps you're wondering why I changed this instance and not the one above. I changed it here because I don't attribute the person who stated it like above, and it doesn't feel as important a concept. I could be wrong if you convinced me of it. Thanks for the above catches and for the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say I am not a fan of the opening sentence Sesame Street research is the research conducted by producers and experts when scripting the popular children's television program Sesame Street to improve its educational quality. - the need to mention the article title in the first few words makes the sentence sound funny, this might be one time where being bold and ignoring the rules to make a good opening sentence would be prudent...just don't know what yet.
I'm inclined to agree. A previous version of this article didn't have the opening sentence, but someone along the way (during its GAC, I believe) suggested that I change it so that it included the title. I also agree that there are times when it's better to ignore the rules, and that this is most likely one of them. Consequently, I suggest removing it, and if we do so, switching the next two sentences and tweaking it a bit. Like this: As of 2001 there were over 1,000 research studies regarding the efficacy, impact, and effect of the American children's television show Sesame Street on American culture. It marked the first time research was used in the development of a children's television show. According to author Michael Davis, Sesame Street is "perhaps the most vigorously researched, vetted, and fretted-over program". What do you think? If there's no objection, I'll make the change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that in this case, teh appeal and readability of the opening sentence trump the insistence of an am emphatic placement of the article name in the first sentence, so am happy for that sentence to be first. We will see what others say when they arrive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one has chimed in, so I went ahead and made the change. Sorry it took me so long; I've been dealing with other fires (i.e., Kevin Clash). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sesame_Street_research/archive1&oldid=530683758"